Please help me understand your reasoning:
We participate in the IETF as individuals, not as corporate represenatives.
As such, asking about [company] product plans on the WG mailing is
completely and totally inappropriate.
Are you really trying to discourage asking questions of self-selected
designated experts?
Questions about WG standards, the development of WG standards, or other WG
activities are of course appropriate to a WG mailing list.
Suppose XYZ corporation makes popular software for IP checksums, but
their algorithms only work for packet lengths less than 20. If Robin Doe
works for XYZ corporation and has voluntarily become an official of
the checksum working group, and that working group has published
documents clearly indicating that checksum algorithms must be able to
accomodate packets of at least size 40, why is it not appropriate to
ask Robin whether XYZ corporation intends to support the requirement?
First of all, what you said on the WG mailing list and what you describe above
aren't exactly comparable. On the WG mailing list you asked about whether or
not a particular company has plans to enhance a specific piece of commercial
hardware in a very specific way. That's quite different from asking someone
whether or not their company generally intends to support some standard.
While I'd say it isn't something to be widely encouraged, as a practical matter
is it often useful to take stock of how widely a given standard will be
supported commercially, if only to assess whether or not the standards activity
is close to the mark. Had you simply done that I would not have said anything.
Again I must point out that people participate in the IETF as individuals, not
as corporate representatives. You sent a message that asked the chair of a WG
about his company's plans to enhance a commercial product. Not only does this
have nothing to do with standards development or any other WG activity, it
drags the chair's other role as a commercial software developer into the fray
and thereby puts him in a fairly awkward position. Being a WG chair is hard
enough as it is; we should try to avoid making it any harder.
We do have specific rules about intellectual property disclosures being a
prerequisite to IETF participation. And these apply to all participants, not
just WG chairs. But this doesn't extend to having to disclose of product plans.
If that were the case practically nobody would be able to participate in the
IETF process.
Your implication that there should be a prior restraint on allowable
questions is not only at odds with interpretations of the scientific
method which insist on transparency, but is also contrary to Article
27(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Oh please. All I said was that questions about specific commercial product
plans weren't appropriate for a WG mailing list. I never said you were
forbidden from asking such questions. In fact I specifically told you that you
should take up the matter in a more appropriate forum.
Of course that doesn't mean that anybody owes you an answer. Indeed, the legal
situation surrounding corporate product plan disclosures and the possibility of
subsequent lawsuits, I'd say the chances of you getting an answer aren't great.
But you are certainly entitled to ask -- in an appropriate forum.
If your reasoning is based on the possible existence of non-disclosure
agreements, please say so. I think we need to have a clear discussion
about which kinds of NDAs are compatible with IESG duty.
My reasoning is based on the notion that a WG mailing list is for discussions
of the standards that WG is developing and other WG matters, and not a forum
for discussion of commercial product plans. Non-disclosure agreements don't
enter into it at all.
Ned